1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As of April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement of KRW 11,272,290 against Defendant A.

B. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was originally registered as the ownership of I, but the registration of shares of 5/6 was completed as to the shares of Defendant A, B, C, D, and net H5, such as the claim(1) in the name of Defendant A, C, D, and network H5.

C. He died on September 2, 1994 and succeeded to 7/3 shares of Defendant E, his wife, and 2/7 shares of Defendant F, his child, and G, respectively.

The Defendants, who are the joint owners of 5/6 shares in the instant real estate, are presumed to be the members of the association. The Plaintiff, in order to preserve the claim for reimbursement against Defendant A, by subrogation of the Defendant, expressed his/her intention to withdraw from the association through the delivery of the complaint against the remaining Defendants, who are the joint owners of the instant real estate.

E. Accordingly, Defendant A is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of change of the name of joint ownership in relation to the shares of 1/6 shares of the instant real estate owned by Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G, the remainder of the members of the instant real estate, and Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff each money as stated in paragraph (2) of the claim, which is the amount equivalent to the shares of each of the instant real estate value, out of the amount equivalent to 1/6 of the value of the instant real estate.

2. In full view of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the real estate of this case was entrusted under the name of 1, i.e., a son owned by the original JJ, and it was recognized that a title trust was made with the registration of joint ownership, such as the statement in paragraph 2 of this case, whereby Defendant A, B, C, D, and net H5 additional trustees, and even if examining all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants combined 5/6 shares among the real estate of this case as a member of the association.

3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ membership of the same association is to conclude the instant real estate.